CHAP, xix HYPER-DARWINISM IN SOCIOLOGY 251 



taking of the black races under white tutelage, thinks 

 that Christianity must consent to modify its equali- 

 tarian dogma, a dogma that has been so operative 

 and so useful in the past, one surmises that a high 

 appreciation of the past usefulness of the Christian 

 religion is quite compatible with a very cool and 

 detached consideration of its claim to present authority. 

 Indeed, can any man believe that which by definition 

 is non-rational ? And to take another point is not 

 Mr. Kidd's proposed tampering with the rigour of 

 Christianity a most unholy piece of rationalism ? 

 Alas ! The countrymen of Cecil Rhodes seem in small 

 danger of being irrationally altruistic, or democratic, or 

 humanitarian in their treatment of the black man ! 

 And, if the premises are true, is not Mr. Kidd's per- 

 sonal counsel most subversive and pernicious ? If re- 

 ligion blindly obeyed in the past has made us what we 

 now are, must we not still obey religion with what is 

 called blind fidelity ? If irreligion has brought its 

 penalties hitherto, will not irreligious acts incur the 

 same doom hereafter ? And irreligious theory no less ! 



Biologically, Mr. Kidd seems to have left one 

 possibility unconsidered. Congenital variations may be 

 due to the environment (by use -inheritance or by 

 differences of nutrition), or they may be due to 

 amphimixis ; or thirdly, they may be due to an inner 

 tendency to vary. Mr. Kidd, in his enthusiastic 

 adherence to Weismann, has left the last possibility 

 out of consideration ; yet Romanes points out that 

 Darwin was inclined to look in that direction. Now, if 

 there is a tendency to variation in living species, if 

 variation is not simply forced on them by environment, 

 there is no reason for assuming that variation will be 



